Am Freitag, den 13.08.2010, 10:40 +0200 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:43:51PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> >Am Donnerstag, den 12.08.2010, 23:38 +0200 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:
> >> [1] or agree to repackage using cdbs - I just won't you to get the
> >> impression that I lured you into this: most people in the multimedia
> >> team are fine with - yeah, even prefer - short-form dh, it is just me
> >> being obnoxious.
> >
> >I prefer dh over cdbs over long debhelper form. Are there any technical
> >reasons for not using dh?
>
> Good question. Thanks for asking!
>
> CDBS is more backports-friendly (beyond backports.org too!).

Advertising

That's true. Using bleeding edge packaging tools make backporting
harder.
> CDBS provides routines to fetch and repackage upstream tarballs
I don't use this feature, but it could be useful.
> CDBS provides routines to track copyright and licensing info of sources.
That's nice. Where do I can read more about it?
> CDBS is less invasive - e.g. can be used with manually run dh_* commands
You can use override_dh_* to run a dh_* command manually.
> CDBS is written in make (short-form dh somewhat reinvents make in Perl)
Yes, but Makefile rules can get complicated. Do you want an example? I
like dh because it's simple.
--
Benjamin Drung
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Maintainer (www.debian.org)